Judge Boasberg vs. the People: When a Federal Judge Protects Criminal Aliens and Defies the Law

By Ronald P. Bouchard Jr.

On March 15, 2025, Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order halting the lawful deportation of over two hundred sixty foreign nationals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang known for murder, extortion, and human trafficking. This order directly obstructed executive enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act and contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the administration’s authority to proceed.

But Judge Boasberg didn’t stop there. He went further, charging officers with criminal contempt for carrying out those lawful orders.

Why This Matters to Every American

This isn’t about political opinion or personal ideology. This is about the law.

It is about whether judges are bound by the Constitution. It is about whether federal officials can protect violent criminals from lawful deportation. And it is about whether you, the People, still hold the final say in the operation of your government.

The Law Is Clear: Judges Have Limits

According to Article III of the Constitution, judges do not possess unlimited discretion. They are required to operate within their jurisdiction, applying law, not creating it. As John Locke wrote:

“The legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary, arbitrary decrees.” (§135)

Judge Boasberg is not the legislative branch. He is not the executive. His duty is to “declare what the law is and whether consistent with the law of God, and the fundamental or constitutional law of society.” (The State v. Post, 20 N.J.L. 368, 370 (1845)), not override the lawful authority of the President and the Supreme Court.

Who Was Judge Boasberg Protecting?

Let’s ask the question plainly:

When a judge shields over two hundred violent gang-affiliated foreign nationals from lawful removal, who is he really representing? The American people? The Constitution? Or foreign criminals?

The public deserves a real answer.

Is This a Crime?

Federal law (8 U.S. Code § 1324) prohibits knowingly harboring or shielding illegal aliens. If Judge Boasberg issued an order with the effect of obstructing federal enforcement against violent foreign nationals, he may have crossed into criminal conduct. If a citizen obstructed deportation of gang members, they would face prosecution. No public office should provide immunity from the law.

Preemptive Rebuttal: Do Illegal Aliens Have Constitutionally Protected Rights?

It’s often argued that “illegal aliens have constitutional rights.” That is a misunderstanding of the law.

Yes, the Constitution uses the term “persons,” and in narrow contexts—like criminal prosecution or civil procedure—certain minimal due process protections may apply. But that does not create a right to remain in the country, nor does it place unlawful entrants under the full protections meant for citizens or those lawfully present.

If someone breaks into your house, the police don’t ask whether they were served legal papers before removing them.
They don’t pause and say, “Wait—we need to give you due process first.”
They remove them, because the person is trespassing.

The same principle applies here.
Unlawful aliens have not been invited. They have not entered by consent. They are not under the jurisdiction in the lawful sense. Therefore, they do not gain constitutional shelter from removal—especially not from a judge acting outside his bounds.

As Locke wrote:

“No government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it.”

And as the Supreme Court affirmed in Kleindienst v. Mandel:

“When the Executive exercises this power… courts have no judicial authority to second-guess the political branches.”

So no—illegal aliens do not have a constitutional right to remain in the United States. They are not immune from lawful removal just because they are physically present.

The People’s Notice: Correcting the Record

A lawful Notice has now been issued to Judge Boasberg, citing foundational principles from the Constitution, Locke, Vattel, and established U.S. law. It demands he:
– Identify the lawful authority for obstructing deportation of violent criminals
– Justify charging federal officers for following lawful orders
– Cease interference outside his constitutional jurisdiction

If he fails to respond or rebut these claims with lawful evidence, then his actions stand as unlawful and liable under the rule of law.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t just about one judge. It’s about restoring the rule of law. When a single federal judge blocks constitutional authority, shields violent foreign actors, and criminalizes those carrying out lawful duty, it’s not justice, it’s rebellion.

The People are the masters. Government is the servant. That includes judges.

And when the law is violated, it is not just our right, it is our duty, to correct it.
Published on April 17, 2025

UPDATE: The Supreme Court Has Now Contradicted Its Own Authority – The Record Must Be Corrected

In my original publication regarding Judge James Boasberg’s March 15, 2025 ruling—which halted the deportation of violent foreign nationals affiliated with Tren de Aragua—I cited the Supreme Court’s prior affirmation of the Executive’s lawful power under the Alien Enemies Act. At the time, the Court had aligned with the clear limits of judicial authority.

But now, on April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court has reversed course and acted in direct contradiction to its earlier position. In doing so, it has exposed a deep and dangerous inconsistency within the judicial structure itself.

The Court intervened in a case where the district court had issued no final ruling and the Fifth Circuit was actively considering the matter. Justice Alito, dissenting, pointed out that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to act—and yet, it did. Worse, it extended due process protections to foreign nationals who entered this country unlawfully, prioritizing their claims over the rights of the very People who ordained the Court’s authority.

This renders Judge Boasberg’s previous obstruction of lawful deportation no longer an isolated breach—it is now part of an institutional pattern.

---

What the Supreme Court Has Now Affirmed (and Why It Matters)

By halting deportations for those with no legal standing in the nation, the Supreme Court has unintentionally created a precedent. A precedent that must now apply equally and first to the governed:

• If foreign nationals cannot be detained or deported without judicial review,

• Then no citizen shall be detained, fined, charged, or deprived of liberty without immediate access to due process, courts of record, and trial by jury.

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended…”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9

“Every act beyond constitutional limits is usurpation and treason against the sovereignty of the people.”
— Tucker Blackstone, 1803

This updated reality does not lessen Judge Boasberg’s breach—it amplifies it. He acted unlawfully, and now the Supreme Court, instead of correcting the record, has blurred the very standards it once stood by.

---

Where Do We Go From Here?

The lawful Notice issued to Judge Boasberg still stands—undisputed, unanswered, unrebutted.

But now the People must issue the same lawful demand to the Supreme Court:
If you have reopened habeas corpus for the unlawfully present, then you are now duty-bound to declare all Americans held without trial, process, or court of record to be unlawfully detained and to begin immediate remedy.

Let the contradiction become the correction.

Let the precedent bind them—not to serve unlawful actors, but to restore justice for the People.

The record has been updated.

The duty to act remains.